Although no one in my immediate family has ever owned one, I’ve always had an affinity for the lovingly quirky Swedish brand. Maybe it’s my suburban Bostonian upbringing, where there’s a lot of old money, intellects, general preference of having an item with character over pure flashiness, and until recently, a lot of Saabs.

Growing up, I knew a lot of people with Saabs, including as neighbors, family friends, parents of friends, teachers, and my own uncle Bob from New Hampshire who leased two 9-5s back-to-back in the early ’00s. I’ve ridden in just about every bodystyle of the 900, 9000, 9-3, and 9-5 from the 1990s and early 2000s, but it wasn’t until I started working in the car industry, specifically at South Shore MINI, that I had the chance to drive a Saab.

You see, for various reasons, MINI tends to speak to the same type of buyer who would’ve bought a Saab 10-20 years ago. MINIs certainly do have a lot of character, can be very comfortably optioned without screaming eliteness, and are decidedly quirky in their own loving way. We’ve taken a good handful of Saab trades in during my nearly two years now on the job, and my very first Saab I drove was a very clean 2011 9-3 Turbo4 XWD we took in on trade and sold retail last year.

So far this year, I’ve had two clients trade in final generation 9-3s: a 2003 9-3 Linear 2.0t and a 2009 9-3 2.0T. In both cases, these Saabs lived their lives under ownership of the same families, and apart from normal wear and tear, were meticulously maintained from a mechanical standpoint. Both of these facts I’ve come to find very common among most of the Saabs I’ve experienced throughout my life. Simply put, Saab owners generally loved their cars.

Despite their differences in engines, drivetrain, and general condition, for the most part each one of these final generation 9-3s I’ve driven have provided a very similar driving experience. Now I’ll be the first to admit that I do have some rather strong, somewhat biased opinions regarding cars, but with that being said, I always do my best not to let my preconceived notions influence my overall judgement of a car from a driving standpoint.

With that in mind, the final generation Saab 9-3 has always been a car that I’ve wanted to like. It would never be my ideal Saab, however, exhibiting rather frumpy styling and sharing too much in common with other GM branded vehicles. While never a vehicle I lusted over, it was a car that remained on my radar for its lengthy 10 years of production, maintaining my curiosity even if my interest in the model waned.

Sliding into the heavily chemically-treated leather buckets of the is a feast for the senses. Regardless of its shared underpinnings and questionable levels of material quality, the 9-3 presents its driver with a distinctive cockpit unmistakable for anything but a Saab.

From its familiar aircraft-inspired dashboard shape, to the egg-crate vents, center console ignition, flip-out cupholders, Nightpanel control, and unique plethora of buttons on the center stack, the 9-3 effectively carries on the Saab spirit and motto of “Born From Jets”.

Considering this Saab’s premium price and positioning when new, interior quality leaves something to be desired. The earlier models are fine, but by the late 2000s/early 2010s, it would’ve been nice if GM had upgraded the aging 9-3’s interior a bit with a redesign, or at the very least upgraded it with some more solid feeling materials and higher-end finishes befitting of a luxury car.

When it comes to the driving experience, however, the 9-3 simply has too many negatives to be a car I can like and enjoy. While the turbo whine is charmingly delightful, the turbo lag present in all engines I’ve driven was more than I would’ve preferred.

All three of these 9-3s I’ve driven were “Sentronic” automatics with manual shift mode, with the ’09 and ’11 feeling moderately quick. Using the manual shift mode certainly provided a bit more enjoyment. The clunky feeling shifter, however, was not something enjoyed and honestly felt like it belonged in an economy car.

Considering I’m someone who favors firm suspensions, I found the 9-3’s ride downright harsh and punishing. Steering is generally tight, but somewhat inconsistent, with the 9-3’s wheelbase feeling like it’s only about 75% the length it should be in most maneuvers. The 9-3’s biggest weakness, however, lies in its chassis.

Shared with the basic Opel Vectra and Chevrolet Malibu, the 9-3’s Epsilon simply wasn’t suited for duty as a premium European sports sedan. Body flex and roll are all too prevalent in basic maneuvers, with lots of moans, groans, and rattles during acceleration, turns, and bumps. Quite frankly, the 9-3 lacks the solid feel I was hoping for, exhibiting a more hollow, shaky feel overall.

As I’ve said before, the Saab 9-3 has always been a car I’ve wanted to like, as the very nature of it and the Saab brand has appealed to me for most of my life. However with each successive 9-3 I’ve driven, it’s become harder and harder to truly like it. The truth is, it’s a car that’s neither very comfortable nor fun-to-drive, isn’t particularly attractive from any angle, features a somewhat low-rent interior for its class, and lacks any truly notable or rewarding qualities related to the driving experience. Yet, for some reason, I still have a soft spot for this car.

I guess I’d say the 2002-2014 Saab 9-3 is like one of your favorite music artists whom you’ve been a loyal fan of for a long time, but they somehow are now only a shadow of their former self. They aren’t be able to hit the same notes, their more recent music isn’t as catchy, and they don’t have the same level of energy when performing as they used to. Yet at the end of the day, you’re still a lifelong fan, still listen to their music including their more recent work, and are still passionately rooting for them.

Although the second generation Saab 9-3 is not a car I’d care to ever own, for all its inadequacies and unappealing qualities, the 9-3 is still a car I can say I have an appreciation for.

51 Comments

Your review confirmed what I’ve thought, GM Killed Saab. I owned 5 Saabs when they were made by Trolls in Tröllhätten. A 1976 model 99 Combi 3 door, a 78 Model 99 Turbo hatchback that was tuned by a Saab mechanic, very fast. A 87 900 hatch. The only New Saab I ever owned and my least favorite. It had sluggish performance, and the 5th gear synchro went bad. Then I picked up a sweet 77 model 99 EMS from a high school student who bent the hood in an accident for only $250. It had about 80K miles but was meticulously maintained by the 1st owner. Came with a fat folder of all service records. While I owned it, it was rear ended in a snow storm and totaled by insurance. The drivetrain was so good I paid about $1800 to have the drivetrain put into a clean 75 model 99 EMS Combi body. Turned out to be my favorite Saab next to the Turbo. Was a blast to drive. I sold it with about 150K on it to an enthusiast from Maine.

The key to fun with a Saab is a Standard Shift, performance shocks, performance radials, a factory manual & a trusted mechanic when your over your head. I loved taking on cars of all makes from BMW’s to Corvettes with my 2 liter Saabs especially the Turbo. I always felt like I was in the cockpit of a plane with my fully instrumented dash and long row of lit rocker switches. Like nothing I drove before or since.

GM didn’t kill Saab all by itself. Saab was all but dead by 1990. They made the mistake of abandoning their core buyers who wanted moderately-priced cars with character. Instead, they went upmarket with the 900 to compete with Audi and BMW. It worked at first but the 1967-vintage platform was getting creakier with each passing year. Then there was the half-Fiat/Lancia 9000 which was a resounding flop in the critical US market. By 1990, Saab was on its last legs with poor-selling cars and no money for new products. I think really GM tried at first to keep Saab going with the new 900, 9-3, and 9-5. But GM had big problems of its own by the late 1990s and Saab began to suffer from slow starvation.

Agreed with both points. And I’ll add that these cars’ default trim is puzzling. Once the original buyer had picked out a sedan, an automatic, and boring non-colors inside and out they might as well have just gotten a Chevy Malibu and saved the difference.

Agreed. Saab killed themselves by going upmarket instead of staying where they were with loyal buyers. They sold more cars during the years before they decided to go upmarket.

Volvo is in the midst of this same thing. They wanted to move upmarket to compete with Lexus, Benz, Audi and BMW and are failing.

I don’t know how it was in Europe with Volvo but in the USA, Volvo 240 and 740 were bought by a lot of well off folks(sort of like the Grand Wagoneer). A drive through a wealthy neighborhood in the 1980’s and 1990’s would show that practically every other house had a 240 or 740 in the driveway. Volvo USA should have sent folks to drive through various well off neighborhoods to see what was in the drive way. If they did then they would see that Volvo did not need to go all upscale to get the high dollar set, they were already buying them.

It’s funny, a 9-3 2.8T Aero was a car that always rattled around my “long lists” when shopping for a used car. It was the quirky, left-field nature of the Saab brand that appealed to me… I grow weary of the hordes of BMWs and Mercedes-Benzes around. But the 9-3 never advanced to my shortlist because, well, it just wasn’t good enough. If I’m going to endure European reliability and parts costs, I should be getting something fun to drive out of it all, like a used 3-Series. Or, if I’m going to tolerate front-wheel-drive and high parts costs, I’d get a used Alfa Romeo 159 (sorry North Americans: y’all really missed out on that one!). The 9-3 did nothing better than any of its rivals and it stuck around for too long.

So Brendan, I can relate. It is a car I’ve wanted to like but it’s just not good enough.

Now, a second-generation 9-5… Now we’re talking. I don’t care how much GM componentry it has, that is one slick ride!

Saab aren’t luxury cars but supposedly quality cars: the approriate materials properly assembled. The Peugeot 406 I drive is like this. The plastic is not lovely but everything is tightly assembled and at 20 years old is rattle-free. Saab should not be about luxury but dependable, unostentatious quality (see: Saab 900 series 1).

+ 1. SAAB didn’t pretend to be a luxury car like BMW or Mercedes, but to be a left field choice based on strong engineering, safety and individual styling. Being too popular would have wrcjed the mystique for those of us lucky enough to get it.

I had 3 of these, all Sportwagons, in 2006, 09 and 12. So what if a BMW os better round corners or an Audi has better quality trim? The seats in a SAAB are the best you could get; they were impeccably and uniformly reliable (and 50mpg plus from a turbo diesel); and you had the only one in the company car park.

Personally I don’t know why they ever retired the first gen 2-stroke. It was fully competitive.

We had two 70’s 99’s, close to their original era, and later had a 2004 9-3. The legendary 99’s were not at all reliable, but they were indeed quirky and charismatic. (And the two-door trunkback was the best looking Saab ever…)
They also had handling and performance that was more like a Rabbit than a Monza.

The answer is it took 38 hours to build one. Various decisions during the design process led to a costly production process. The problem was not the 38 hours per se but that Saab could not recover the cost. It was owner five at 250,000 miles who reaped the benefit of the durability. The next 900 was cheaper to make by about 50%.

My brother-in-law had one of the first generation GM cars. Having driven a number of the 900’s previously (and came damn close to owning a 900 convertible, it having an automatic was the deal killer), on my first drive I could tell that this wasn’t a Saab that I knew anymore.

The death knell was pronounced a year or two earlier, when, upon test driving a current model at the ceremony transferring Saab to GM, the then head of Opel came up with the comment, “We can build a car 90% as good from the Opel parts bin.”

Exactly what Saab loyalists didn’t want to hear. The the best epitaph you could possibly put on the corporate tombstone.

Agreed Saab was in serious financial trouble and didn’t have much choice about being bought by some larger company. But GM was probably the worst possible choice to buy the firm. They not only did not have a clue what made Saab the marque that it was, but they had an absolute determination to never get a club. Saab was going to be an upscale Opel, sold in America. And they could never see an inch past that concept.

GM definitely killed Saab, thru hubris, self-centeredness, and corporate stupidity. And I will always regret that I’ve gone thru life having never owned a Saab or a Citroen.

Exactly. I’ve owned 4 Saabs over the years, an ’86 900S, a ’93 9000CSE, a ’95 900S Convertible, and a 2000 9-3SE. Material quality did deteriorate significantly from the 80’s into the 00’s, but I never felt that this was any different from any other brand, so I’ll give Saab a pass on that front, but yes, GM really did kill an already ailing Saab. I’ve stated before that I was terribly disappointed with my last Saab. I can forgive the cheap plastics, the downgraded leather and even the turbo lag, as that was always a Saab quirk, and I never found it particularly bothersome. What is unforgivable, and what surely alienated most of Saab’s core customer group, is that by the time GM took full ownership a Saab essentially had taken on the feel of a slightly downmarket Toyota with a turbo. The magic was gone, for sure.

Saab had completely lost the plot by this point. The late-period 9-3s were utterly generic and lacking in all the practicality and uniqueness that made earlier Saabs so enticing, starting with a hatchback. To GM, putting the ignition switch in the console made it a Saab. Also, the “born from jets” allusions were absurd given that Saab Automobile had decades earlier separated from the like-named aircraft manufacturer, and very little about the 9-3 was any more related to aircraft than other brands.

If I was ever in the market for a Saab it would have to be an early hatchback or a convertible…and definitely one with a manual transmission. Yet, I have to admit that the convertible has always struck me as a woman’s car.

It’s somewhat ironic that GM enlisted Opel to assist in the rebuilding of Saab. And even more ironic since Opel’s future was “sealed” right about the same time that they were “partnered” with Saab. At one point, Opel had 20% of the German car market (did I read that here?), but coincidentally or not, Opel’s market share started slipping about the time Saab joined the GM portfolio.

Who killed Saab? Perhaps Saab killed Saab? Too small to really compete? Too slow to change with the market? Unable/unwilling to break from their FWD only roots. (If any car company could have fielded an AWD car, it was Saab, yet they waited until every other car maker beat them to the market. Yeah, I know, GM ultimately forced Saab to kill itself.)

“GM Parts bin”; in my experience Saab did a good job putting premium parts in public places. They have lasted well. The parts not in direct view were the cheap ones. The 9-3NG here aren’t very saab like on the inside.

Chassis; yeah that is the big weakness.

Turbo lag. That is actually a feature, not a bug.

Never a fan of the 9-3NG; if they had made a hatch version would have bought. Did not like interior compared to mine 900NG. Biggest fault of the NG was the lack of a fold flat rear seat — again the need for a chassis meant a very large bar in back.

What a shame GM turned these into a vanilla Malibu clone at home in any rental fleet. After draining the mark of all its upscaleness, quirkiness and character, there was little to recommend to former owners, many of whom were upscale, quirky characters. Volvo has also gone down this sad path.

Got to drive a few Saab 96’s and Sonnets back in the early ’70’s during college when I had a part-time job as a longshoreman. Love ’em or hate ’em there was nothing else like ’em. V-4’s,, 4 speed on the column, mud flaps etc., No one ever mistook those for Malibus.

I wouldn’t go as far to say that these were Malibu clones, though yes, the Malibu was eventually based on the same platform. They still looked and drove very differently from one another.

As far as Volvo goes, in some ways it is sad how they’ve strayed a little from their roots, but on the other hand the brand is really making strides right now, with their commitment to electric powertrain, cutting edge technologies, meticulously crafted and appointed interiors, and a lineup of cars that apart from the aging S60 is easily the most competitive Volvo has had in this century.

It is a terrible feeling to really want to like a car – but it just won’t let you. Been there on more than one occasion.

I think that Saab only ever had really one niche – the Swedish car for people who needed something more offbeat than a Volvo. Volvo buyers were the normal people – who wanted a good, durable, safe, drama-free car. But not everyone wants that. Some people want a thrill, some excitement, something unique. And Saab was there to provide it. But GM bled out all of the character and personality but didn’t really replace it with anything.

In the late 80s I knew a Swedish fellow who had been an auto mechanic there before coming to the US. I mentioned that I had a thing for the 900 Turbo. His advice? Stick to Volvo, stay away from Saab.

As a young man I delighted in the quirky, outre styling of Saabs. I swore I’d have one someday, and indeed I did; a 1993 900s and a 2006 9-2 (I know that ones really a Subaru Impreza in Saab drag, but it actually was sold as a Saab so I consider it as such). I got the 900 towards the end of its life and it proved a giant headache which almost made me swear off European cars forever. The 9-2 was reliable but not really special at all. In any case, the attraction of an iconoclastic car from a left brain company was not enough to make up for reliability and servicing woes in both cars. But I guess I’m lucky that Citroens nor Peugeots have been recently sold in North America, because those cars stylistically speak to me in much the same way that Saab does .

Why not import a Peugeot 306 or 406 or a Citroen XM or Xantia? These cars can be bought for about €2000-3000. The Citroens will need expert care due to the oleopneumatic suspension but the Peugeots are very straightforward and robust plus great to drive (I don’t mean really fast I mean the chassis and controls are excellent).

I think what killed SAAB was the parent company making it an independent company. When GM got involved it was not profitable, so my guess is that SAAB was a money pit for the parent company although that is not really clear either. I don’t know what GM expected to get by taking over this company, it was just more badge engineering.

What GM wanted was SAAB’s customer base (well educated, professional, affluent, etc). Its OPEL/Vauxhall brand was no better off than the Chevy crowd in the US and GM had failed miserably with the Cadillac in Europe.

However, just like the US, GM did’t understand its customers in Europe.

I recently read the Swedish novel “A Man Called Ove” and then watched the movie. Highly recommended!! Without revealing too much, Ove is a 2nd generation Saab guy (starting with a 93, then a 95 and finally a 9000, with many others in between) and his neighbor was a Volvo guy, which is a key part of their relationship over 40 years. Lots of great vintage Swedish stuff in the film, and digs at other cars as well, with one nail in the coffin being the GM acquisition of Saab. The book and movie were unexpected finds for me, who seriously considered a 2 stroke 96 as my first car, but ended up with a 122S. Oh, one other great tidbit in the book that will appeal to some CC-ers is a passing comment about the Saab/Scania relationship.

I think this is proof of the futility of trying to make an Opel Vectra something else. Both the Saab 9-3 and the Saturn L series were an attempt by GM to graft the recipient brand’s apparent qualities onto a good, but not great European mid size car. Apparently there is more to being a Saab than an ignition key between the seats and more to a Saturn than plastic body panels and a no haggle price. The only successful alteration of the Opel Vectra was to put the steering wheel on the right and call it a Vauxhall,

I have some limited time in one of these, as my wife has a 2004 9-3 2.0t. I haven’t been able to drive it in any circumstances where chassis limits would come into play, but it feels perfectly comfortable loafing along a wide freeway at about 90 mph. Brendan’s right that the suspension has way to little travel, so potholes, etc., are pretty unpleasant to go over. My summary impression is that it’s more fun than a Corolla, but nowhere near as exciting for its time as the 99/900 was for its time.

As to acceleration and power, I think we might selectively remember the “big engine” version of European sporty cars from the early 2000s. Being used to the smaller-engined BMW product of the E39/E46 era, my reaction to the 9-3 is that power isn’t that different. Something in the 180-220 range for all of the Europeans, if you think about 4 and 6 cylinder engines that weren’t “AMG,” “M” or “S.” At some point in the later 2000s, everybody decided 300 hp was the new 200 hp–for minivans and the like, even. A Saab 9-3 isn’t going to handle an M3, but it could probably hold its own with a 323i.

Who knows, the Saab 9-3 may rise again. National Electric Vehicle Sweden AB, the Chinese-owned company that bought the remains of Saab, holds the rights to the design and still say they intend to produce an all-electric version, though they have given up on using the “Saab” brand.

But somehow, I doubt we’ll ever see that, and by now the platform is hopelessly too outdated to be competitive.

Brendan, I love these real world product reviews from you! I think you nailed both the promise–and the letdown–of GM-era Saabs. I also think it’s interesting to note the regional variations in car sales that sometimes occur. Growing up in New Orleans, Saabs were virtually nonexistent. There were Volvos and Peugeots aplenty, but nothing “born from Jets.” When I went to college in New England, however, they were everywhere! I’m older than I want to be now, so sadly the ones that were popular when I was in college were the “real” ones, still made by Saab in Sweden and representing the continual refinement/improvement of a practical design. The ones I was exposed to in the late 1980s were indeed nice cars–I wouldn’t have wanted one myself, but I can see why plenty of people did. The newer ones, on the other hand, felt like frauds to me. Dressed up to look Saabish, with crap GM underneath…..

Back in the 1970s the dollar was devalued in comparison to most European currencies which made imported automobiles more expensive. European cars could not longer compete against American and Japanese cars based on price and were kind of forced to market themselves as luxury vehicles and to add luxury features (like leather interiors and power windows).

My well-to-do Republican aunt had an unusual affinity for Saabs (in spite of the stereotype of Saab owners being liberal college professor types). She truly thinks they were the best cars in the world and she owned 3 different ones (a 900 and a pair of 9-3s) over a period of approximately 20 years. She totaled the second one by hitting a moose and the third by missing a turn on a winter day and sliding off the road into a deep culvert. (The car was worth less than the cost of having it repaired, but could have probably been made road worthy again.) I tried to persuade her to buy a new Buick Regal Turbo.

My aunt was devastated that there weren’t any leftover Saabs where she’d bought the last one and as a compromise ended up buying a BMW 328ix, which she insists is not as good as a Saab. She traded the first BMW 328ix for a second one that had more comfortable seats, but (according to her) still not as good as a Saab.

Never ridden in a 9-3, but it was widely criticized for having a brittle ride quality when it came out. I have ridden in the original ’67 style Saab and a later 9000, which as you all know was an extensive face lift on the original. Both had the feel of a very stiff metal shell with a supple suspension. Kind of like a VW bug, only with actual wheel travel. And of course the big rounded windshield. Back then most cars were RWD while Saabs were the much more snow capable FWD. All before traction control of course.

Apparently the 9-3 had none of that, and the FWD advantages (don’t tell me about the awesome on the limit cornering fun of RWD – no one drives like that in real life unless recreating. We do drive in snow and on occasion mud though) in real world driving was no longer unique. GM could maybe had made Saab a real thing in today’s market, but didn’t.

Never warmed up to Saabs. Growing up, I saw many 900’s and they struck me as an outdated car in production for too long. The only Saabs I liked (and think are very attractive) are the final (9-3? 9-5?) wagon with the clear tail lights stretching into the roof and the last 9-5 sedan.

I had a Saab 9000 CDE low pressure turbo (there was a more powerful model IIRC)
Made from the best steel I’ve seen on an automobile. Bought secondhand for £1200 in 2009 – it had a scrape on the leading edge of the driver’s door frame which had been repainted badly; some surface rust visible. Don’t know the original cause. Rust did not advance one iota in 5 years’ ownership, not a fraction of an inch, nada. No rust anywhere else. Engine, however, big disappointment, reliability and economy-wise. Handling great.
Would still entertain another though.

I’m from a different SAAB era — I owned a ’57 and a ’58 93, in the mid ‘sixties. Neat little car, direct competition to the Beetle. Three-speed column shift, free-wheeling between transmission and 750-cc two-cycle three-cylinder. Cast aluminum grille with winter-start window shade behind, cord-operated from the dash. T-handle pull start. Plywood floorboards, upholstery fabric that looked like mattress ticking. The ’57 had rear-hinged doors — glad I had one car with those. I backed, hard, into a lone telephone pole in the middle of a rural-Mass. country store: zero effect on the bumper. I’d still like to have another . . .

Brendan – Very interesting article and viewpoint. I imagine being up in MA you’d see a number of these still roaming the roads.

My 2004 9-3 Aero is a hoot to drive – sure, the turbo takes a moment to spool up and lord knows the technology systems are light years behind the competition – but this car has personality. Quirky? Sure. There’s always some such dash light on, but once you stop and restart it disappears and doesn’t come back on for days or weeks sometimes. These were always pretty rare down here in Texas and one of the reasons I bought it was because it reminded me of home (New England)….but we have a solid little fan club in these parts.

I love the lines on this car – the subtle drop from the rear haunches to the front. The simple, functional front end design (not a fan of the ’08 redesign). Below is the twin of my car (from the Google); it shows a simple yet sophisticated design. The seats are supremely comfortable, much like our old Volvo S70, the shifter is crisp and the steering like a slot car (larger than usual steering wheel though). The origami cupholder is trick to watch but useless beyond a can of something.

I’m not sure there was ever a “pure” Saab except for the 99/900. Pretty much every other version had chromosomes from other brands (although the 9-2x and 9-7x were the best versions of their donor brands). I never had the opportunity to drive an Opel Epsilon but the Malibu Epsilon seems completely “unsimilar” to my car.

Saab was Stage 1 by 1990 and while GM came “to their rescue”, GM had no idea on what to do with the brand. Perhaps it outlived its purpose, crowded out of the near-luxury field by the rising Acura, Lexus and resurgent Audi. Turbos, which were Saab schtick, became common place. Here’s a great study by some gentlemen at the University of Cambridge and University of Edinburgh. Interesting read.